It is all obvious or trivial except…

And this blog\’s nomination for \”Hypocrisy Of The Year\” is

The hypocrometer pegged when Obama opined that putting armed guards in schools was not the answer to Newtowns. Barack and David send their children to Sidwell Friends School. Sidwell Friends employs 11 armed guards.

Post navigation

34 comments on “And this blog\’s nomination for \”Hypocrisy Of The Year\” is”

Obama himself never goes anywhere without a dozen or so men armed with every sort of semi- and fully automatic weapons known to man that can be hidden out of sight.

Every school shooting or large scale gun massacre has been ended by brave men armed with guns confronting the shooter. Who usually then kills himself. That means the shooter can kill dozens if those men are minutes away, or very few if they are on the scene. In Britain, because we are so disarmed and otherwise utterly helpless, it means that shooters can wander around for hours, even days, shooting to their heart’s content. Derrick Bird roamed around shooting people at random for four hours before police cornered him. Raul Moat was on the run for a week all the time free to kill as he pleased.

So I don’t think it is hypocrisy. It is just that Those In Power want us to be sheep. Easier to herd where they want us to go. Easier to shear. Easier to slaughter if it comes to that.

Obbie doesn’t want such a solution because there is no gun control mileage in it.
As for a “dozen armed men”–more like several hundred probably–esp when you consider the law he passed making protesting anywhere near him a ferderal crime.

@Dibble, to be fair the outrage tends to be strongest when people (criminals or not) are illegitimately shot dead by police.

It’s also reasonable to have someone like the President of the United States protected by armed bodyguards. You have to admit that that job comes with a greatly heightened risk of being popped by a loon, fanatic, or enemy government death squad. The USA has had four of its 44 presidents assassinated in office and serious attempts made on at least as many more. So there are obvious problems with having presidents going around with no protection at all.

As terrible as school shootings are, the risk to schookids of being popped by a loon are orders of magnitude lower.

What a stupid comment. Pillocks they might be, to a man, but no one is going to ever find themselves in that job without attracting the attention of several crazed nutters who likes stroking their weapons.

I will grant that eleven armed guards seems excessive but Obama’s kids are surely far more liable to face attack than your average Springfield Elementary School.

What the Americans do with their guns is their business but it seems peculiar that people want more of ‘em here. We have low enough rates of firearm related deaths that this is one issue where I would be extremely cautious before messing with the status quo. And, besides, Derrick Bird seems to be a poor example for gun advocates to use given that Cumbria has loads of shotgun and firearm owning farming types. Hardly disarmed.

Eleven armed guards sounds like a lot – but is it really? Seven days a week, 24 hours a day? That’ll be 21 shifts at a minimum. 11 full-time guards would work 55 shifts between them. Two guards at a time for what is presumably a sizeable campus with more than one entrance? Sounds very reasonable to me.

In the US, how often are decent quality private security guards _not_ armed?

The school in question has lots of kids with rich or influential parents who would be prime targets for kidnapping and so-on, so to have a moderate level of security is justified.

An armed deputy sheriff was present at Columbine. He didn’t prevent the deaths of 13 (excluding the murderers) and injuries of 21. Nor would I expect him to. How many armed guards are appropriate to install in schools? Two? Ten? Twenty?

In any case, it’s a fucking sorry problem that armed guards in schools are considered a reasonable solution.

As I understand it, no legislation would be needed to supply armed security for the schools. Bill Clinton brought in legislation to enable federal funding for accredited armed guards for the schools. It remains in force, but Obama de-funded it.

In the USA, as a minimum, they should be running away from the vanity of the gun-free zone. Especially in schools, but also shopping centres, hospitals, etc.
Where the hell is the wisdom in assuring every crook, devil, and terrorist in the neighbourhood, that your kids’ school is a free fire zone full of defenceless potential hostages?

JamesV – “to be fair the outrage tends to be strongest when people (criminals or not) are illegitimately shot dead by police.”

You mean the usual suspects manufacture some fake outrage when the police shoot dead a protected minority that said extremists want to make a martyr of. Most people know it is a hard job and mistakes are made.

“It’s also reasonable to have someone like the President of the United States protected by armed bodyguards.”

Because his life is so much more important than mine and yours? I don’t think so. If he wants them, and he does, he ought to allow us to have them too.

Obama’s children don’t rate those 11. They belong to the school. Obama’s children have their own extra detail of protection.

“What the Americans do with their guns is their business but it seems peculiar that people want more of ‘em here. We have low enough rates of firearm related deaths that this is one issue where I would be extremely cautious before messing with the status quo.”

But we have a low rate because we are British while they have a high rate because they are not. Or more accurately, they have a high rate because they have a large Black population. Northern White populations do not have fire arm murder rates out of the ordinary for other European populations. It is the ten-times larger Black and Hispanic murder rate that makes America look so dangerous.

However our murder rate has gone up ever since we made fire arms harder for law abiding people to own. We have a much higher fire arm crime rate now than we did in 1904 when anyone could buy a gun. Given we have now had large scale immigration from countries with vastly higher murder rates – South Africa and Jamaica for instance – we can expect our rates to rise. Whether or not guns are legal. They are banned in Jamaica after all. The only question is whether we want to keep White law abiding people easy targets or give them a slight chance of fighting back.

“And, besides, Derrick Bird seems to be a poor example for gun advocates to use given that Cumbria has loads of shotgun and firearm owning farming types. Hardly disarmed.”

Hardly armed either.

12ukliberty – “An armed deputy sheriff was present at Columbine. He didn’t prevent the deaths of 13 (excluding the murderers) and injuries of 21. Nor would I expect him to.”

You mean a truant officer was present. A p!ss poor shot he was too. But notice that he prevented them carrying out their main plan which was a massacre of people fleeing the cafeteria.

“In any case, it’s a fucking sorry problem that armed guards in schools are considered a reasonable solution.”

It is a sorry problem that people are not executed for these sort of crimes or at least are not jailed for most crimes. But that is the world we live in. We have to deal with it.

13Churm Rincewind – “Obama submits to a system which implements entirely legal arrangements with which he personally disagrees? I don’t call that hypocrisy. I call it democracy.”

Sarcasm?

15Monty – “In the USA, as a minimum, they should be running away from the vanity of the gun-free zone. Especially in schools, but also shopping centres, hospitals, etc.”

Absolutely. Ever gun massacre bar one took place in a gun-free zone.

16ukliberty – “ISTM a society has serious problems (other than lack of armed guards) if armed guards are considered necessary for schools, hospitals and shopping centres etc.”

Well it is coming to Britain too. Nothing you can do to stop it. What else is there to do? It looks to me that banning single mothers raising their children as vegan goths might have a greater impact on these sort of spree murders than banning guns, but, hey, that is just me. So might banning immigration from Korea.

It is the ten-times larger Black and Hispanic murder rate that makes America look so dangerous.

The crime rates among America’s urban ethnic minorities are undeniable. Nor, though, can it be denied that Ronald Simmons, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, Wade Michael Page, James Holmes, Ian Stawickie, Jake England, Alan Watts, One L. Goh, Scott Evans De Kraai, Jared Loughner, Jiverly Wong, Steven Kazmierczak, Kyle Aaron Huff and a hell of a lot of other people were not black and hispanic. Me, I don’t want to make things easier for either the “Peckham Boys” and “Tottenham Mandem” or the unemployed divorced bloke who might flip out in Middle England.

However our murder rate has gone up ever since we made fire arms harder for law abiding people to own.

Drawing a straight line between “blacks” (or, indeed, “hispanics”), “loads of guns” and “loads of murder” is silly and unpleasant. Which is not to promote open borders-y indifference to the problem of immigration from more far violent countries but to say we should make efforts to improve our economy, culture, local communities and policing rather than merely shrugging and tooling up.

Populations are much larger than they were 100 years ago–so more nutters–even though living conditions are much better (thanks to the market, not the scum of the state). Warehousing the troubled on pysch drugs is also bad news.

The non-nutter (ie criminal rather than entirely crazed) violence may be made worse by imports from nasty violent cultures but the antics of the illfare state and anti-drug madness have created the poison ground in which evil takes root. Fatherless, dragged-up males who find an identity in gangs and crime and a living in dealing drugs all exist because prod-nosed polits and bureaucrats (many of whom will be weedwankers and/or snorters themselves) can’t keep their noses out of other peoples lives.

Also, the amount of media-hype given to (selected) nutters is an encouragement for loons who want attention to kick off. Not to mention the large number of troubled military trained killers dumped unhelped back into society when their political masters have no more need for their costumed thuggery. According to leftist site Wikispooks Derek Bird spent 12 years in the army in NI. The article gives interesting ideas as to what might have caused his kick off–can’t say if they are true but they sound more plausable than a tax investigation.

The left don’t care about any of that of course in their longing for gun control–ie that vast numbers of guns will be kept only in the hands of the state’s thugs and everyone else will be disarmed. The same circs that have enabled socialist monsters to butcher 150-200 million people in the last 100 years.

Derrick Bird did not serve in the British Army, and that site is a conspiraloon’s wet dream, but even if he had “spent 12 years in the Army in NI” he would seem to be the exception, rather than the rule.

I agree that all of those are factors. It can’t help to have parts of American culture that fetishiseviolence in a manner that would baffle even cowboys of old.

Yet people really think that yer average advocate of gun control has some deranged desire to subordinate the populace beneath the will of the state? When are their communist ambitions going to be imposed in Britain, and Australia, and New Zealand, and Germany, and Italy, and Japan and all the other countries where gun regulation has helped to reduce firearm deaths? Are they playing the long game?

The idea that Marxist states rested on a foundation of gun control is similarly weird. The Tambov rebels had guns. The problem was that loads of individuals with guns were almost bound to fail against trained and organised armies with the latest military equipment at their disposal. This would be true today.

Violence is mostly regarded fondly by those who have had no involvement in it.

The supporters of gun control only want gun control for ordinary people–they want to see plenty of firepower in the hands of govt thugs. That makes them passive if not active supporters of evil.
The fact that almost disarmed nations like the UK etc have not yet become full on tyrannies and murder-states ?.
People, including wicked ones, start from where they are. Outright tyranny was possible quickly in Russia/China because of what war/civil war had done to them. Germany under Adolf moved somewhat more slowly because war and depression had damaged them less than the much poorer-to-begin-with Russia/China. But they still moved quite quickly.

The West was not, after the war, ready for takeover. The “progressives” have had to do their dirty work slowly. And they have.
The West has enjoyed economic growth since the war but the state has also run the credit cards to the max. When the harm that has done hits and millions are on their uppers–then we will see how nice the gun-controllers really are.

The Tambov rebels were too few to defeat the Red army–but they had the Soviet scum shitting their pants and using every savage measure they could think of to stop them. Millions of guns instead of just thousands creates an impossible situation for the state.

To be clear, then, you want millions of guns in Britain for the moment when “progressives” impose a communist/fascist system. You realise that Japan, South Korea and Singapore have just about the strictest gun regulations in the world? Are “progressives” going to take over there as well? They’re really devious.

Japan/SKorea(up to 1945 while it was ruled by Japan) had plenty of guns doing the states dirty work up to 1945.-ask the survivors of Nanking or the Burma railway. After the war, great economic progress ( made under some of the principles America used to stand for) have created more freedom than previously but those societies are already under the thumb of progressivism/corporate socialism to some degree. Japan has always been a caste based, hierarchical society and Japanese untouchables(eta) are still treated like shit. Yakuza can get all the firepower they want regardless of rules–again only ordinary people are disarmed. The legal system is very unjust and the accused have few rights in the courts. It is much better than before WW2 but it would not take much (perhaps a new war with China-if the Chinese did not nuke them)for Japan to go back to the full-blown Kempei-Tai enforced tyranny of pre-war days.

All states are violent wicked scum–they may show the mask of benevolence–with other peoples money–for a while but the evil is always there. So long as everything goes their way and they get everything they want they will be your best buddy–but if you cross them or things go pear-shaped for them–then you will see the mask drop and you learn some very hard lessons–if you live.

PaulB – “Obviously it would be much better if everyone carried a gun. The role models should be Afghanistan and Somalia.”

The problem is the lack of good faith in your arguments. It would hardly matter if British people were required by law to carry loaded guns with them wheverer they went. The British do not murder each other in large numbers. On the other hand, strict gun laws in countries where people do murder each other in large numbers have not helped. Indeed virtually all the most murder-prone countries in the world have tough gun laws. Jamaica for instance.

Sure. But if you look at the figures, White Americans are less likely to go on spree killings than their numbers indicate. Black Americans more likely. And Asian Americans – unexpectedly – a lot more likely. In fact if you singled out Korean Americans specifically the numbers would probably be even higher. Given that in your list Seung-Hui Cho and One L. Goh were of Korean origin.

“Me, I don’t want to make things easier for either the “Peckham Boys” and “Tottenham Mandem” or the unemployed divorced bloke who might flip out in Middle England.”

I can understand that but it is irrelevant. People who want guns will get them. Now we have people from a Jamaican/Somali/African cultural background, we can expect much higher gun crime. The only issue is whether we are going to make our White sheep remain sheep as they are preyed on.

“Has it? Doesn’t look like it to me.”

Then you are not looking properly. From that link:

The number of homicides rose from around 300 a year in the 1960s to about 1,000 a decade ago.

And that is not even looking at the 1950s or the 1930s when murder was even rarer.

“Drawing a straight line between “blacks” (or, indeed, “hispanics”), “loads of guns” and “loads of murder” is silly and unpleasant.”

It is unpleasant. I find it unpleasant. But that is not the issue. It is irrelevant whether you or I like it. It is a fact. Which means it is not silly. There is no majority African population *anywhere* in the world that does not have a vastly higher murder rate than any randomly chosen White European population. It was as true in America in the 1920s as it is today. All the data points one way. If you go to Wikipedia and look at countries by murder rate, you have to go down to about 36th place before you find a non-Hispanic and/or non-majority African origin nation – Kazakhstan.

“Which is not to promote open borders-y indifference to the problem of immigration from more far violent countries but to say we should make efforts to improve our economy, culture, local communities and policing rather than merely shrugging and tooling up.”

Culture is hard to shift. There is no reason to think that we are going to teach generations of sugar cane cutters to be brain surgeons any time soon. What is worse, what progress we have had has been in the other direction – decent, married, hard working bus drivers have seen their sons turn out as knife wielding drug dealing Baby Daddies doing long prison terms.

You can teach immigrants to be more British when everything teaches them the British are effeminite, racist, nasty oppressors.

23BenSix – “It can’t help to have parts of American culture that fetishise violence in a manner that would baffle even cowboys of old.”

It can’t help to have parts of British culture that fetishise violence as well – the people who get hard ons for violent criminals and those that want to have their children. The ones that say only the criminal is innocent and so on.

“Yet people really think that yer average advocate of gun control has some deranged desire to subordinate the populace beneath the will of the state?”

I don’t think it is deranged. Nor do I think they have thought it through. But it goes hand in hand with a belief that the State is pure and noble while we are all base and obsessed with our own self interest. People who tend to think this – PaulB for instance – tend to think that the vast extention of State power is for the better. And hence people should not have guns. Only those in power can be trusted with them.

“The Tambov rebels had guns.”

That is why they were rebels. The Kulaks did not. Not that it matter in the end.

“The problem was that loads of individuals with guns were almost bound to fail against trained and organised armies with the latest military equipment at their disposal. This would be true today.”

I am not sure that is true. Especially given that rag-tag peasant militia have repeatedly beaten professional Western Armies in every colonial confrontation so far. What you mean is that a State willing to deploy genocidal-levels of violence will win against virtually anyone. That is another argument.

25BenSix – “You realise that Japan, South Korea and Singapore have just about the strictest gun regulations in the world?”

Pillars of freedom they have been too.

26PaulB – “The Swiss own a lot of guns, but they’re not allowed to carry them around loaded.”

As long as they keep the ammunition in a side pocket, they can. I am fine with Swiss gun laws. Let’s have them all here.

@PaulB ‘No, not Switzerland. The Swiss own a lot of guns, but they’re not allowed to carry them around loaded.’

Not allowed? Well, why didn’t you say? If only we’d ‘not allowed’ the guys at Dunblane, Columbine, Batman, Hungerford, Newtown etc to do what they did, everything would be OK…

Unwittingly, you are making the two mistakes that all Statists make.

No1: To assume that if you ban something, it will not occur.

No2: To miss the very obvious point that this is, like most things, cultural.

In Somalia, you could try to not allow people to carry loaded assault rifles in public, but you wouldn’t get anywhere. In Switzerland, you can not allow it (though you can carry a rifle into McDonalds if you like, you just need to have a reason for having it and an unloaded magazine) and people will accept this not allowedness.

Parts of London used to be more like Switzerland than Somalia (ie at the very least, there were probably more Swiss than Somalis). Now they are more like Somalia.

I and I suspect you could be trusted with a belt-fed gimpy; some people could not.

The number of homicides rose from around 300 a year in the 1960s to about 1,000 a decade ago.

I presumed you meant since 1996. I do not think that the 1968 Firearms Act had a lot to do with the rise in the murder rate. Unless you can give me a good reason to believe that murders had been prevented in the decades prior to that by long-barrelled shotguns.

White Americans are less likely to go on spree killings than their numbers indicate.

They are, but what of it? The point is that they are more likely to go on spree killings than people in other developed nations.

People who want guns will get them.

You say that as if it’s common sense but I’m not sure it’s necessarily true. Why do our gangs use knives so often? Do they have more of a sense of fair play than the Bloods, the Crips or the MS-13 or could it be that guns are, while possible to acquire, somewhat hard to get one’s hands on?

As for people who flip out and go on killing sprees – they are liable to use whatever weapons come to hand. The fewer guns around the better our chances that they will make do with something that is, say, not lethal from a distance and able to harming dozens in moments. See, for example, the Chinese nutter who attacked twenty people with a knife and only killed one of them.

The only issue is whether we are going to make our White sheep remain sheep as they are preyed on.

I do not dispute that there are going to be killers – without, as I write below, sharing your belief in the inevitability of a dystopic future – but has it occurred to you that they would also target innocent black, Asian and mixed race Britons? Do they matter?

It is unpleasant. I find it unpleasant. But that is not the issue. It is irrelevant whether you or I like it. It is a fact.

I am not disputing that immigration, especially from countries with very high crime rates, is leading and will lead to more violence than there would have otherwise been. The point was that the situation need not be so nightmarish that there is little we can do to protect ourselves and eachother but hoard firearms.

The point about murder rates is true but, then, Britain does not face equivalent circumstances to those nations. We do not have the resource conflicts and extreme poverty of African nations; the large-scale drug wars of Latin America or even the history of racial turmoil and gang culture of the US. Which, again, is not to say that things are going to be fandabydozy but that the extent to which they’re going to be dangerous is contingent on the political and cultural measures that we take. And I fail to see how “making guns more readily accessible” would be a productive one. Indeed, the people whose lives it would make easier, I think, would be street thugs, gang bosses and drunken lunatics. (Briefly.)

Pillars of freedom they have been too.

Authoritarian states, indeed. But, then, you have no problem with authoritarian states. You, as I do, believe in restricting immigration. The point was that none of these strict, nationalistic and, in the last case at least, eugenicist states behave according to a “progressive” agenda. They know that gun control can work.

You can have the last word, if you would like it, because I don’t think we are going to convince eachother. Indeed, this might apply to all such conversations.

“That might have something to do with the fact that we don’t allow our criminals and nutters to buy firearms over the counter.”

Has sod all to do with it. The local hardware shop in my town sold guns over the counter (inc rifles and pistols not just shotguns) from the 1880s to the 1920s when the first –politically motivated–gun control came in and not a single massacre.

Your “point” about Bush is meaningless–Bush had no gun control agenda while Obbie is quite to disarm everyone else while he and his have plenty of armed protection. And, no, the lives of political scum are not more worthwhile or important than anybody else.

‘The local hardware shop in my town sold guns over the counter (inc rifles and pistols not just shotguns) from the 1880s to the 1920s when the first –politically motivated–gun control came in and not a single massacre’.

Gun crime in the UK (and the murder rate) has gone down because it is increasingly difficult for criminals to get hold of weapons and ammunition.

In contrast you not only have situations in the USA where schoolchildren and firemen can get murdered by nutters, you have ghetto drug crews and Mexican cartels being able to purchase all the hardware they want.

‘while Obbie is quite to disarm everyone else while he and his have plenty of armed protection’.

In case you haven’t noticed, Obama (unlike the common citizenry) has to consider the fact that quite a lot of people around the world would happily kill him because of his job, whether they’re AQ types pissed off about bin Laden’s death, or hillbillies who believe that FEMA is planning to send them all to death camps.

Furthermore, gun control proponents are not demanding the complete disarmament of the US populace. Their proposals involve restricting the sale of weapons which no sane individual should need. After all, if you’re not in the forces or part of a SWAT team, why the fuck should you need an assault rifle?

Finally, has it ever occurred to you loons that if the US government was seriously intent on imposing a totalitarian state on its citizens it has the resources of a superpower to do so, and gun ownership won’t mean a damn. Unless you honestly think that there’s a committee of Feds sitting around the table saying ‘We can’t impose the ZOG/NWO on the people because some of them have Armalites, and we only have Abrams tanks, Apache gunships and TLAMs’.